AP Court Case

• Shenk v. US: Facts

  Charles T. Schenk printed/ mailed 15,000 fliers arguing that the draft was unconstitutional and urged men to resist. Many claimed that it was propaganda to discourage participation in WW1. He was convicted under the violation of the Espionage Act and ended up going to the Supreme Court.
• Shenk v. US: Question

  Did Schenk’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment free speech rights? 
• Shenk v. US: Amendment

  First amendment (Freedom of speech)
• Shenk v. US: Ruling

  Ruled in favor of US
• Shenk v. US: Decision

  The First Amendment prevented Congress from exercising prior restraint and to prevent the punishment of speech after its expression. The Espionage Act’s criminalization of speech was not a violation of the First Amendment. Also said that some speech did not merit constitutional protection and that statements must produce “clear and present danger”.  
• Shenk v. US: Impact

  First case that created a test for punishing a speaker solely because of the content of their speech. Created the “clear and present danger” test. 
• NYTimes v. US: Facts

  Daniel Ellsburg illegally copied classified papers (known as the “Pentagon Papers”) since he felt that the US should not be in Vietnam during the war. A New York Times reporter received the lead and after printing 2 stories, President Nixon directed the General Attorney to stop NYTimes since they would cause “irreparable injury to the defense interests of the United States.” The Washington Post also ended up releasing statements on it and when they were both threatened with court, they said that the First Amendment protected them. 
• NYTimes v. US: Question

  Did the government’s efforts to prevent two newspapers from publishing classified information given to them by a government leaker violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press? 
• NYTimes v. US: Amendment

  First Amendment (Freedom of press)
• NYTimes v. US: Ruling

  Ruled in favor of newspapers
• NYTimes v. US: Decision

  The case ended in a short majority opinion called a per curiam (per the court). One of the judges decided that the First Amendment was absolute and when it said “Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of the press”, it meant no law and not some laws. Another judge wrote that the papers would not result in any immediate, direct, and irreparable damage to the nation. The information did not justify a prior restraint on the publication. 
• NYTimes v. US: Impact

  Prior restraint, meaning censorship before something is published or without submitting material to a government censor. 
• Tinker v. Des Moines: Facts

  5 students decided to show their opposition for the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. The schools announced a policy banning the armbands and students who refused to comply would be suspended. The students were sent home and their parents sued the school saying that the First Amendment, freedom of speech, protected them. 
• Tinker v. Des Moines: Question

  Does the prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic speech, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? 
• Tinker v. Des Moines: Amendment

  First amendment (freedom of student speech)
• Tinker v. Des Moines: Ruling

  Ruled in favor of the Tinkers
• Tinker v. Des Moines: Decision

  The Justices stated that the First Amendment protects them while in public school and wearing armbands was a form of speech, since they were meant to express concerns about the Vietnam War. They also expressed that this doesn’t mean that schools can never limit students’ speech. If schools could make a reasonable prediction that the speech would cause a disruption to the school, then they may limit the speech (however, this case provided no evidence of the armbands causing a disruption to the school environment). 
• Tinker v. Des Moines: Impact

  Schools can only limit a students’ speech if it interferes with or disrupts the school environment. 
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Facts

  Wisconsin convicted 3 members of Amish and Mennonite communities for violating the state law requiring students to attend school until the age of 16. 3 students stopped attending school after 8th grade and claimed that their religious beliefs are inseparable and interdependent. They believed that exposure to higher learning and removal from their daily religious practices could endanger the children’s and parent’s salvation. The Amish community provides an alternative education which prepares them for their roles as adults.
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Question


  Under what conditions does the state’s interest in promoting compulsory education override parents’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion? 
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Amendment


  First amendment, incorporated by the 14th (free exercise)
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Ruling


  Ruled in favor of Yoder
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Decision

  The court ruled that the families’ religious beliefs/ practices outweighed the states’ interests in making the children attend school. They said that by the children attending school beyond eighth grade, it would interfere with well-established and deeply held religious convictions. They also added that one or two more years of high school would not produce enough educational benefits. 
• Wisconsin v. Yoder: Impact


  Prioritized the right of free exercise over the states’ interests.
• Engel v. Vitale: Facts

  Every day before class started, students in New York classrooms would recite a school-provided prayer. Students were not required to recite the prayer and it was either led by the teacher or a student. 2 Jewish families (including Steven Engel) sued the school board. They argued that reciting the prayer in a public school violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The schools upheld the prayer and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. 
• Engel v. Vitale: Question

  Does the recitation of a prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? 
• Engel v. Vitale: Amendment 


  First amendment (establishment clause)
• Engel v. Vitale: Ruling


  Ruled in favor of Engel
• Engel v. Vitale: Decision

  The court ruled that the school-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause. The prayer was a religious activity performed by government officials (school administrators) and used in a government program (school) to advance religious beliefs. 
• Engel v. Vitale: Impact 


  Struck down prayer in public schools
• McDonald v. Chicago: Facts

  FIX
• McDonald v. Chicago: Question

  Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment and thus limit Chicago’s ability to regulate guns? 
• McDonald v. Chicago: Amendment 


  Second and fourteenth amendment
• McDonald v. Chicago: Ruling


  Ruled in favor of McDonald
• McDonald v. Chicago: Decision

  The court concluded that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fully applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment. They decided that the Framers considered the right to keep and bear arms one of our fundamental rights. They also said that self-defense is a basic right, and that individual self defense is the central component of the Second Amendment. 
• McDonald v. Chicago: Impact

  Had a profound impact on the interpretation of the Second Amendment/ regulation of guns. 
• Gideon v. Wainwright: Facts

  Clarence Gideon was arrested after he was found near a crime and since he could not afford a lawyer, he asked the state of Florida to provide one for him under the Sixth Amendment. The judge denied his request because the state of Florida only allows a court appointed lawyer in capital cases. He ended up defending himself, it didn’t go well, and he was in jail for 5 years. During that time, he was studying law and reaffirmed his beliefs of deserving a lawyer. He filed a habeas corpus claiming that the trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights. 
• Gideon v. Wainwright: Question 


  Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to defendants in state courts, even in cases in which the death penalty is not at issue? 
• Gideon v. Wainwright: Amendment


  Sixth and fourteenth amendment
• Gideon v. Wainwright: Ruling


  Ruled in favor of Gideon